Kuwar Yeshvir Arya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing the State/ respondent No.1, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6 and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.

3. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 19.08.2025, which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 6 and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.

2. Under challenge is the selection and appointment of respondent No. 8, i.e., Pawan Kumar Anand, who has been selected on the post of Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-forestry).

3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 04.03.2024, a copy of which is 2 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025 annexure-1 to the petition, was issued by the respondent- University for various posts, including Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-forestry). The essential qualification was indicated as Master's Degree in Agriculture/ any other branch of Science/ Social Science relevant to agriculture equivalent qualification recognized university.

4. The advertisement also indicated the concern/ relevant/ allied field for direct recruitment for the post of Subject Matter Specialist. So far as the dispute is concerned, the same pertains to Subject Matter Specialist/ T6 (Agro-forestry). As per the aforesaid clause as indicated in the advertisement, the Subject Matter Specialist (Agro-forestry) required the concern/ relevant/ allied field for minimum qualification as "Master Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized university with 4 years Bachelor Degree in Agriculture/ Horticulture/ Forestry".

5. Referring to the educational details as issued by the respondent- University, a copy of which is annexure-7 to the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, so far as respondent No.8 is concerned, his Master?s (PG) degree has been indicated in the subject of Horticulture.

6. It is, thus, argued that once as per the advertisement itself, the Master's degree in Agro-forestry was required, and as per the list issued by the respondents themselves, respondent No.8 would only be having a Master's in Horticulture, as such, he was not eligible for being appointed as the Subject Matter Specialist (Agro- forestry), and thus, it is prayed that his appointment deserves to be set aside.

7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the 5th Deen's Committee Report, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, to indicate that, so far as Forestry is concerned, they are different PGs with specialization in M.Sc./ Ph.D., per which M.Sc./ Ph.D. Forestry (Silviculture & Agroforestry) is a separate discipline viz-a-viz an M.Sc./ Ph.D. Forestry (Forest Biology & Tree Improvement), etc., and consequently, simply because respondent No. 8 is having a Master's in Horticulture, the same cannot be construed to be one in Agroforestry/ Silviculture, and thus it is urged that respondent No.8 was ineligible for being appointed as a Subject Matter Specialist. 3 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025

8. On the other hand, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing the respondent-University, has supported appointment of respondent No. 8 by placing reliance on the averments contained in the counter affidavit to indicate that respondent No. 8 was duly qualified for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Agro-forestry), as his qualification was as per the advertisement for the said post, which was Master's Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture or equivalent, and that as qualification of Sri Pawan Kumar Anand is Undergraduate Degree in Forestry and Postgraduate Degree and Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture, and Horticulture is a core subject in which the Department of Forestry and Agro-forestry is also covered, consequently, the Master's Degree in Horticulture is equivalent to the Master's Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture, and thus, the appointment of respondent No. 8 is in accordance with law.

9. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University is unable to indicate anywhere, on the basis of any material on record, as to how a Master's Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture can be considered equivalent to a Master's Degree in Horticulture, more particularly when the advertisement itself spells out both of them separately.

10. Upon the same being pointed out, learned counsel appearing for the University prays for and is granted ten days' time to file a supplementary counter affidavit indicating the same.

11. Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 also prays for and is granted ten days and no more time to file a counter affidavit.

12. As the matter has been heard at length, as such, list this case on 04.09.2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 19.08.2025, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 6, has argued that in the advertisement dated 04.03.2024, the post was indicated as S.M.S. Horticulture/ T6 and the discipline was indicated as Horticulture/ Agro-Forestry, for which one post each was earmarked. In pursuance thereof, a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee that as the core subject is Horticulture, of which a part is Agro-Forestry/ Silviculture/ Horticulture, as such, a 4 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025 Master's Degree in Horticulture would suffice for the post of SMS Horticulture/ T6 in the discipline of Agro-Forestry, and accordingly, even though the respondent No.8 was not possessed of a Master's Degree in Agro-Forestry/ Silviculture, yet considering the decision taken by the Selection Committee, the respondent No.8 was appointed.

5. Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8, has also adopted the argument of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6.

6. The aforesaid argument of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6, and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8, is found to be fallacious, misconceived and hence rejected.

7. The reason is not far to seek.

8. A perusal of the advertisement would indicate that so far as the post for which the petitioner and respondent No.8 were claimants, the same was the post of "SMS Horticulture/ T6". The discipline was indicated as Horticulture/ Agro-Forestry. The advertisement clearly indicated one post each against both the disciplines, i.e., one post towards Horticulture and one post towards Agro-Forestry.

9. As per the concerned/relevant/allied field for direct recruitment to the post of Subject Matter Specialist, which is a part of the advertisement, so far as the Subject Matter Specialist/ T6 (Agro- Forestry) was concerned, the minimum it was qualification was a Master’s Degree in Agro Forestry/ Silviculture or an equivalent qualification from a recognized University. indicated

10. Admittedly, respondent No.8 is not possessed of a Master's Degree in Agro Forestry/Silviculture; rather, he is having a Master's Degree in Horticulture. Thus, once both the disciplines have different qualifications as indicated in the advertisement, consequently, there was no occasion to appoint respondent No.8 against the post of Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-Forestry), once he was not possessed of the said qualification, which is possessed by the petitioner as per the qualification, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to 5 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025 the petition (page-30 and 31).

11. So far as the argument of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6 that the Selection Committee was of the view that the Master's Degree in Horticulture should be considered equivalent to Agro-Forestry is also found to be fallacious considering the fact that equivalence of a qualification cannot be at the whims, fancies and caprices of the Selection Committee and no evidence or decision to the said effect of a Master's Degree in Horticulture being equivalent to a Master's Degree in Agro-Forestry/ Silviculture has been brought on record from the side of the respondents to indicate that any competent authority has considered both the Master's Degrees to be equivalent. Thus, the said argument is also rejected.

12. At this stage, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 6, states that the said anomaly has been corrected in the subsequent advertisements, which has been issued. Once the respondents themselves admit that there was an anomaly which has been corrected the subsequent advertisements, as such, they are to thank themselves for not having indicated the same in the advertisement which was issued by them and in pursuance of which the entire selection has been made without considering the qualifications and criteria.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.

14. A writ of certiorari is issued, setting aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.8, i.e., Pawan Kumar Anand, to the post of Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-Forestry).

15. The respondents are directed to process the result of the said selection from the stage after the interview had taken place, keeping in view the discussion made above.

16. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 11, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing the State/ respondent No.1, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6 and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.

3. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 19.08.2025, which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder :- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 6 and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8.

2. Under challenge is the selection and appointment of respondent No. 8, i.e., Pawan Kumar Anand, who has been selected on the post of Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-forestry).

3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 04.03.2024, a copy of which is 2 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025 annexure-1 to the petition, was issued by the respondent- University for various posts, including Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-forestry). The essential qualification was indicated as Master's Degree in Agriculture/ any other branch of Science/ Social Science relevant to agriculture equivalent qualification recognized university.

4. The advertisement also indicated the concern/ relevant/ allied field for direct recruitment for the post of Subject Matter Specialist. So far as the dispute is concerned, the same pertains to Subject Matter Specialist/ T6 (Agro-forestry). As per the aforesaid clause as indicated in the advertisement, the Subject Matter Specialist (Agro-forestry) required the concern/ relevant/ allied field for minimum qualification as "Master Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture or equivalent qualification from a recognized university with 4 years Bachelor Degree in Agriculture/ Horticulture/ Forestry".

5. Referring to the educational details as issued by the respondent- University, a copy of which is annexure-7 to the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, so far as respondent No.8 is concerned, his Master?s (PG) degree has been indicated in the subject of Horticulture.

6. It is, thus, argued that once as per the advertisement itself, the Master's degree in Agro-forestry was required, and as per the list issued by the respondents themselves, respondent No.8 would only be having a Master's in Horticulture, as such, he was not eligible for being appointed as the Subject Matter Specialist (Agro- forestry), and thus, it is prayed that his appointment deserves to be set aside.

7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the 5th Deen's Committee Report, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the rejoinder affidavit, to indicate that, so far as Forestry is concerned, they are different PGs with specialization in M.Sc./ Ph.D., per which M.Sc./ Ph.D. Forestry (Silviculture & Agroforestry) is a separate discipline viz-a-viz an M.Sc./ Ph.D. Forestry (Forest Biology & Tree Improvement), etc., and consequently, simply because respondent No. 8 is having a Master's in Horticulture, the same cannot be construed to be one in Agroforestry/ Silviculture, and thus it is urged that respondent No.8 was ineligible for being appointed as a Subject Matter Specialist. 3 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025

8. On the other hand, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing the respondent-University, has supported appointment of respondent No. 8 by placing reliance on the averments contained in the counter affidavit to indicate that respondent No. 8 was duly qualified for the post of Subject Matter Specialist (Agro-forestry), as his qualification was as per the advertisement for the said post, which was Master's Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture or equivalent, and that as qualification of Sri Pawan Kumar Anand is Undergraduate Degree in Forestry and Postgraduate Degree and Ph.D. Degree in Horticulture, and Horticulture is a core subject in which the Department of Forestry and Agro-forestry is also covered, consequently, the Master's Degree in Horticulture is equivalent to the Master's Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture, and thus, the appointment of respondent No. 8 is in accordance with law.

9. However, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University is unable to indicate anywhere, on the basis of any material on record, as to how a Master's Degree in Agro-forestry/ Silviculture can be considered equivalent to a Master's Degree in Horticulture, more particularly when the advertisement itself spells out both of them separately.

10. Upon the same being pointed out, learned counsel appearing for the University prays for and is granted ten days' time to file a supplementary counter affidavit indicating the same.

11. Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8 also prays for and is granted ten days and no more time to file a counter affidavit.

12. As the matter has been heard at length, as such, list this case on 04.09.2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing."

4. In pursuance of the order dated 19.08.2025, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 6, has argued that in the advertisement dated 04.03.2024, the post was indicated as S.M.S. Horticulture/ T6 and the discipline was indicated as Horticulture/ Agro-Forestry, for which one post each was earmarked. In pursuance thereof, a conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee that as the core subject is Horticulture, of which a part is Agro-Forestry/ Silviculture/ Horticulture, as such, a 4 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025 Master's Degree in Horticulture would suffice for the post of SMS Horticulture/ T6 in the discipline of Agro-Forestry, and accordingly, even though the respondent No.8 was not possessed of a Master's Degree in Agro-Forestry/ Silviculture, yet considering the decision taken by the Selection Committee, the respondent No.8 was appointed.

5. Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8, has also adopted the argument of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6.

6. The aforesaid argument of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 to 6, and Sri Abhay Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8, is found to be fallacious, misconceived and hence rejected.

7. The reason is not far to seek.

8. A perusal of the advertisement would indicate that so far as the post for which the petitioner and respondent No.8 were claimants, the same was the post of "SMS Horticulture/ T6". The discipline was indicated as Horticulture/ Agro-Forestry. The advertisement clearly indicated one post each against both the disciplines, i.e., one post towards Horticulture and one post towards Agro-Forestry.

9. As per the concerned/relevant/allied field for direct recruitment to the post of Subject Matter Specialist, which is a part of the advertisement, so far as the Subject Matter Specialist/ T6 (Agro- Forestry) was concerned, the minimum it was qualification was a Master’s Degree in Agro Forestry/ Silviculture or an equivalent qualification from a recognized University. indicated

10. Admittedly, respondent No.8 is not possessed of a Master's Degree in Agro Forestry/Silviculture; rather, he is having a Master's Degree in Horticulture. Thus, once both the disciplines have different qualifications as indicated in the advertisement, consequently, there was no occasion to appoint respondent No.8 against the post of Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-Forestry), once he was not possessed of the said qualification, which is possessed by the petitioner as per the qualification, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to 5 WRIA No. 4424 of 2025 the petition (page-30 and 31).

11. So far as the argument of Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 6 that the Selection Committee was of the view that the Master's Degree in Horticulture should be considered equivalent to Agro-Forestry is also found to be fallacious considering the fact that equivalence of a qualification cannot be at the whims, fancies and caprices of the Selection Committee and no evidence or decision to the said effect of a Master's Degree in Horticulture being equivalent to a Master's Degree in Agro-Forestry/ Silviculture has been brought on record from the side of the respondents to indicate that any competent authority has considered both the Master's Degrees to be equivalent. Thus, the said argument is also rejected.

12. At this stage, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 6, states that the said anomaly has been corrected in the subsequent advertisements, which has been issued. Once the respondents themselves admit that there was an anomaly which has been corrected the subsequent advertisements, as such, they are to thank themselves for not having indicated the same in the advertisement which was issued by them and in pursuance of which the entire selection has been made without considering the qualifications and criteria.

13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.

14. A writ of certiorari is issued, setting aside the selection and appointment of respondent No.8, i.e., Pawan Kumar Anand, to the post of Subject Matter Specialist/T6 (Agro-Forestry).

15. The respondents are directed to process the result of the said selection from the stage after the interview had taken place, keeping in view the discussion made above.

16. Let the respondents comply with this order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. September 11, 2025 cks/- (Abdul Moin,J.) CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench